I generally appreciate Boyce's range of guests and interviewing style. He asks good questions and, most importantly, really gives guests the scope to speak without interruption and in depth.
That said, he gets on my nerves from time to time, especially when it comes to feminists drawing attention to the overall pattern of women's second-class treatment in society.
Like many men, he seems capable of understanding and even empathizing with discrete threads of injustice against women and girls, but when it comes to looking at the big picture, I don't think he would agree that the strands are intertwined.
Rampant MVAWG; the objectification and mega-lucrative exploitation of women and girls through prostitution, porn, surrogacy; the outrageous claim that male people can occupy women's and girls' existence (and do it better than we)----none of this could thrive without large portions of society believing at some level that women and girls are less than 100% human, with rich inner lives and full individual personhood of our own.
One thing that strikes me about his interviews is that his disposition toward guests seems to have much more to do with their personalities than with their actual positions. What I mean is that he seems to have an emotional reaction to their perceived friendliness vs. brusqueness and he lets it color his evaluation of their arguments.
I have seen him accused of privileging young, conventionally attractive/femininity-performing women guests, but I don't think it's as simple as that.
He seemed charmed by Julie Bindel, but fairly antagonistic toward Kara Dansky (and Jane Clare Jones, iirc). I think the difference was that Bindel came off as very affable, smiling often, while Dansky and Jones (although not at all hostile) were direct, blunt, and focused on an intellectually challenging discussion.